Official Political (Republican/Democrat) Debate Thread

[Sean O]

So you think that McCain's Iraq war policy is no good because he's not a prophet who can foretell when the war will be won. Wouldn't that be a great thing if President F. Roosevelt set a timetable for the war against Nazi Germany. That would have been a great success, wouldn't it? The fact is that most people don't understand what's happening right now. WE ARE AT WAR! Since you people are too blind to understand, I'll repeat it again: WE ARE AT WAR!

And we have lost. We set benchmarks for the surge to be a success, and quite literally, they have not been accomplished. And when we ask for a simple clarification of what success will be, we get no details.

It's not about prophesy, it's about defining success and acting towards those goals. McCain has never said what success is, and so how can we be sure we'll ever attain it?

I also should point out that there was a multinational force against the Axis in WW2, but due to our uniliateral stance at this point, that's totally different. Plus, not for nothing, but we already won the war against Iraq. Germany had a brief post-war insurgency that was quickly quashed, while Iraq's is going into its 4th year. The closest similar case would be the American-Filipino war, where there were still casualties 11 years following the cessation of the conflict.

We are fighting against the enemies of freedom, and the war will not be over until they are defeated. How can we know when that will come? All we can do is stay the course until the job is done. To place timetables would be to micromanage the war, and that will only lead to disaster.

Well, how will they be defeated? Ignoring McCain for a second, what do you consider success? When Iraq joins NATO? When they can have their own voice to oppose radical Islam throughout the middle east? When the economy reaches a certain point? When sunni and shi'a aren't fighting in the streets? When the refugees can return without fear of reprisal? When all benchmarks are met? When we can stop paying both sides to prevent outbreaks of violence?

These are simple questions; what is the Iraq War to you? To me, we need to begin withdrawing troops because the Iraqi Government isn't taking us seriously, and refuse to find a true solution to the conflict. Ba'athists are still prevented from holding office, refugees still cannot return home, shia's cannot return to their neighborhoods because it's been taken over by sunni's (and vice versa). Anbar is still a tremendously dangerous place.

[Hory]

So you think that McCain's Iraq war policy is no good because he's not a prophet who can foretell when the war will be won. Wouldn't that be a great thing if President F. Roosevelt set a timetable for the war against Nazi Germany. That would have been a great success, wouldn't it? The fact is that most people don't understand what's happening right now. WE ARE AT WAR! Since you people are too blind to understand, I'll repeat it again: WE ARE AT WAR! We are fighting against the enemies of freedom, and the war will not be over until they are defeated. How can we know when that will come? All we can do is stay the course until the job is done. To place timetables would be to micromanage the war, and that will only lead to disaster.

i) Equivocating the current Iraq War with WWII is absurd.

ii) Bush to announce Iraq troop reduction

iii) Defense Secretary Robert Gates: US now in the 'end game' in Iraq - Gates said President George W. Bush's decision to draw down only 8,000 troops from Iraq by February "represents not only the right direction but the right course of action."

So, using your words, would it be fair to say Bush is now micromanaging the war, which will only lead to disaster?

[Sean O]

You're right though, I'm tired of arguing this point, it makes no sense to bicker anymore! I think it is a tad overstated that Fox News is so far right, as I detailed in my response to Blades, but the vulgar and bitter attitude of people like "Sean O" and some others makes me sick to my stomach. I got to get to sleep soon, and I'm just too darn tired today to continue arguing with people who think they are elite. Sean took my "bullying" analogy out of context, as I said it was a benign analogy not to be taken strictly as parallel, and he starts telling me international relations are NOT a vacuum and stuff that made no sense at all. In my years of studying Political Science, I've never heard such twisted logic and innuendo, so I stopped trying to separate the "wheat from the chaff" in his argument and went to the next post. Judging from his posts the past few pages, he probably was a "bully" in school, and thus wouldn't understand my point if I tried to re-explain it, and I just don't have the energy for someone who can't relate or understand someone who has had experiences that he obviously hasn't. He thinks that his opinion is elite, and there is no other valid or valuable alternative. As far as he is concerned, he is "The Lord of Opinions..."

--- vbprogjoe

None of those were opinions, they are facts. Take a stab at refuting what I said, by providing counterexamples. I will be absolutely amazed if you can find that anything I said would be questioned by a first year IR student at east cupcake university, let alone someone who knows what they're talking about.

What school do/did you go to anyway?

But I'm just a bully, so I guess I'm being unfair :(

[catzrthecoolest]

i wouldn't say we've lost the war... we've had far fewer casualties than the opposition, and captured saddam hussein, whom you must admit was not exactly an admirable figure. I do admit that we've dragged this out for too long though

[DeuceBlades]

Try asking McCain where is Czechoslovakia? Maybe he knows where Burma and Cambodia are to....seeing as none of these countries exist anymore, or at least under new names. Czechs and Slovaks get really pi**ed about that, because both are seperate countries. The 1993 velvet revolution brought that about. I wonder if McCain thinks hes still in the 50's? I think he thinks so.

[RaptorQuiz]

Try asking McCain where is Czechoslovakia? Maybe he knows where Burma and Cambodia are to....seeing as none of these countries exist anymore, or at least under new names. Czechs and Slovaks get really pi**ed about that, because both are seperate countries. The 1993 velvet revolution brought that about. I wonder if McCain thinks hes still in the 50's? I think he thinks so.

:roll:

[Kayxero]

Um Burma and Cambodia are still nations lol

[kgbaseball]

Burma is now Myanmar.

[JoeBlo]

If Bush had listened to McCain earlier we'd probably be done over there with the exception of the troops that any president will leave there just like in Kosovo etc...

I liked Obama when I thought he was a different kind of pol but he's proven to be just another pol that is slicker than the rest. After all he is from the most corrupt city in the nation ie Chicago. Picking a 35+ year senator as his running mate is hardly change we can believe in.

I'm voting McCain because up until this year he was never even considered a Republican, besides I know most of my favorite players if not all MLB players will vote for him because Obama is just a tax and spend standard liberal that will sink the eonomy even further.

[BigRog]

besides I know most of my favorite players if not all MLB players will vote for him because Obama is just a tax and spend standard liberal that will sink the eonomy even further.

Because you know that for sure.

[tywiggins]

(Change of subject)

US National Debt

I found this interesting. http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Republican Presidents increase the national debt more than Democratic Presidents.

---------------------------------

The US National Debt is now about $10 trillion. (It was about $5 trillion in 2001, when Bush took office)

At 5% interest per year, that amounts to $500 billion per year of interest.

In Bush's Presidency, the Debt has almost doubled. It's obviously going to be a lot harder to pay down a $10 trillion debt than it is to pay down a $5 trillion debt.

Assuming 5% interest on the debt and a balanced budget (excluding the interest expense on the debt) -- It takes more than 14 years to double the debt.

My idea: Operate with a balanced budget devoting $1 trillion a year to pay off the debt. This will take more than 14 years to pay off the $10 trillion debt. (Assuming 5% interest)

[DeuceBlades]

and by the end of this year it will be 11 trillion like I had stated, great find Ty.

Um Burma and Cambodia are still nations lol

I know Cambodia is still the same name, its what you call a slider, to see if anyone was paying attention to the question. Burma is no longer the name, its Myanmar. There are alot of countries where the name has changed, or that no longer exists like Yugoslavia (which is now many different and smaller territories)

which in actuality is the way they were before WW1, where Franz Ferdinand was killed (not the band you crazies) along with his wife sophia. Hmm, what a crazy world in which we live.

Burma is now Myanmar.

Thanks KG for making my point, since obviously somebody didnt read it as is.

At least KG understood the point I was making.

[catzrthecoolest]

If i'm not mistaken... wouldn't democrats decrease the debt because they tax more?

[DeuceBlades]

Back on to subject, I respect those of you who are Reps, and there is no changing anyones mind here. The facts are facts, like it or not. Reps raise taxes on the lower and middle class, and the rich always get richer. Im not blowing smoke up your proverbial butts either. Ohio has voted Rep. for as long as I have known, and it continues to struggle, as the poorest state in the union. Reps. say they care about Ohio, but watch jobs leave over to China and India. Now with the free trade agreement with Vietnam on the table, and probably Laos, Cambodia and Thailand will be in this as well, we can expect more of the same from McCain, but Ohio will still vote for him.

[DeuceBlades]

If i'm not mistaken... wouldn't democrats decrease the debt because they tax more?

Um dont you mean Reps tax more?? Reps tax the middle and lower classes out the anal cavity my friend. The rich will always be rich, plus some. The Dems lower taxes on the lower classes, always have.

[meteamo]

I want to give props to everyone for making a lot of interesting and inciteful posts. Thanks.

The definition of a leader? Here it is in black and white - (no racial intent)

#One who can motivate

# The ability to affect human behavior so as to accomplish a mission.

# Influencing a group of people to move towards its goal setting or goal achievement

Doesnt those credentials fit Obama? I think so, and being a leader takes a guy who can ralley people to take on any task we need to take on. McCain cant motivate squat, and I dont know what Palin is trying to do. She doesnt motivate me at all. She can speak, sure, but she is not a motivator.

# I'm a motivator. I motivate everyone at work all the time. I motivate all my neighbors and friends. I even motivate people I met via the Internet that I don't even know.

# I too affect human behavior to accomplish missions all the time. But, I affect them positively although I noticed you didn't say it was positively or negatively affecting human behavior.

# I greatly influence many groups of people to move toward the goals that are definately set and ultimately achieved.

Does that mean I'm qualified as well? Can I run too? I want to run for President. I just need 12 million dollars to get my name on the ballet and a Vice President that would debate Palin and Biden. And I do charitable work for a Non Profit. That almost makes me a minister.

But, back to reality ... I don't think those are qualifications or as you mentioned credentials. Those are personality traits. Experience is one factor. Another factor is Domestic Policy. Another factor is Foreign Experience. A third is the economy and so forth. Knowing how an individual would react in a given situation is extremely useful as well.

I agree about McCain not motivating anyone but what the heck does that have to do with the issues? Not motivating you? Are you going to be more likely to do something or less likely to do something because McCain, Obama or I are elected the nice President? I don't think so. I think you, everyone here and myself will do the same stuff whether who wins. And to say Palin doesn't motivate? Did you see the RNC? The republicans that didn't like McCain too much and that weren't going to vote this year are now motivated enough to vote for McCain.

I for one, cant wait for her first debate with Biden. The Lion will eat her for lunch.

But wouldn't having a cannibal on the ticket harm Obama? LOL j/k

So you think that McCain's Iraq war policy is no good because he's not a prophet who can foretell when the war will be won. Wouldn't that be a great thing if President F. Roosevelt set a timetable for the war against Nazi Germany. That would have been a great success, wouldn't it? The fact is that most people don't understand what's happening right now. WE ARE AT WAR! Since you people are too blind to understand, I'll repeat it again: WE ARE AT WAR!

1. Didn't Bush say we won while on that ship? Or was it something else he said?

2. Are you comparing Nazi Germany to Iraq? I think one was a bit more dangerous to the world.

3. We are at war? Okay ... but if you are saying we are at war with an entity within Iraq, you have to ask yourself why and was it justified. I can understand doing something within Afghanistan regarding Bin Laden and his followers but not Iraq. I may even understand Putin and Russia or even Iran but what threat does Iraq pose after the removal of Sadam? And don't say the terrorists that are there because they wouldn't be there if it wasn't for us in the first place. If we wanted Sadam, we should have sent in the Navy Seals and/or Green Beret and/or Rangers. And the civil war in Iraq will come no matter what as people will struggle for power. It's human nature to do so. It'll come no matter if it was three years ago, next year, or even 100 years from now. One way to make them unite for sure is for them to unite against a common enemy ... US.

Yeah, it's just human nature to lean towards one side. I always thought NBC was more moderate, but they're starting to lean towards the left now. But, that's why meteamo said you have to watch both sides to get the full news.

I'm so happy. I'm so happy. I give you a thousand million karma points and will slip that Twenty I promised you. LOL

Why don't you look at the disasters that have occured during the past 8 years. Two come to mind... Do you remember Katrina and that certain significant date that comes up tomorrow? If you want to blame someone for starting a war, blame Clinton for not doing a thing for national security while in office. We took out one of the biggest world threats and harborers to terrorism. 9/11 was planned well before Bush came into office, so don't give me any crap about that's why they did it.

When baby Bush was running for President, he said he was going to have a hands-off policy toward the rest of the world. We should have had diplomatic relations in high gear with all these countries from day one but we left them to their own and it's kind of like when a teacher leaves the classroom unattended ... erasers will fly all over the place.

8O

Women make up the majority of the population. And to say that you don't understand why women vote or even if you were inferring that women shouldn't vote ... that's completely sexist and unfair. How about if they say that men with black hair or people with a certain skin color shouldn't vote? It's okay to blast women now that Palin is on the ticket but not when Hillary was running? If it's okay to blast women, we should just start blasting everyone no matter how different they may be from everyone else. I don't care if one is a man, another is a woman or if one is white and another is black or if one is young and the other is old. All that stupid is stupid and doesn't make a difference. It should be all about the issues.

I find it funny that one side or the other is taking offense to something that they were saying earlier in the campaign. Both sides do it. It's like watching a bunch of kids arguing. Both sides are freaking hypocrites and they both are qualified to be president. But, unfortunately these two groups are all we really have to pick from.

Why don't you look at the disasters that have occured during the past 8 years. Two come to mind... Do you remember Katrina and that certain significant date that comes up tomorrow? If you want to blame someone for starting a war, blame Clinton for not doing a thing for national security while in office. We took out one of the biggest world threats and harborers to terrorism. 9/11 was planned well before Bush came into office, so don't give me any crap about that's why they did it.

When baby Bush was running for President, he said he was going to have a hands-off policy toward the rest of the world. We should have had diplomatic relations in high gear with all these countries from day one but we left them to their own and it's kind of like when a teacher leaves the classroom unattended ... erasers will fly all over the place.

[BigRog]

Duck, you do realize Clinton did many things before he left office including giving bush info on all terrorist threats when Bush took over. A lot of people don't remember any of that though because it was shrouded by the Lewinsky scandal that was happening at the same time.

[meteamo]

Certain people thought it was the case of "wag the dog" (which I think just came out earlier) ... trying to avoid the Lewinsky issue by introducing something else that would never be a problem. Kenneth Star wanted to make a name for himself so much. Only if someone listened ...

BTW ... what did Bush do with all those notes that Clinton left him? I wonder if anyone ever looked at them.

[Sean O]

Certain people thought it was the case of "wag the dog" (which I think just came out earlier) ... trying to avoid the Lewinsky issue by introducing something else that would never be a problem. Kenneth Star wanted to make a name for himself so much. Only if someone listened ...

BTW ... what did Bush do with all those notes that Clinton left him? I wonder if anyone ever looked at them.

We know what Bush did with the chief counter-terrorism adviser, and that was ignore his existence until the attacks.

If only bush had known Al Qaeda was a threat: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEB...arke%20memo.pdf

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

sigh.

[BigRog]

The whole Lewinsky thing was BS, it was blown out of proportion. It had nothing to do with his presidency and the media made it such a big thing when it was a family matter and nothing for national television. He will be remembered for that and not the fact he was actually one of the most legitimate presidents to have sat in office.

[meteamo]

The whole Lewinsky thing was BS, it was blown out of proportion. It had nothing to do with his presidency and the media made it such a big thing when it was a family matter and nothing for national television. He will be remembered for that and not the fact he was actually one of the most legitimate presidents to have sat in office.

Agreed. Unfortunately, he will be remembered for that although it didn't really have anything to do with his actual Presidency. But no matter what the issue, political or not ... the media will make a big issue over anything that may get ratings. It's all about the ratings. The higher the ratings, the more they charge per commercial. Always follow the money.

We know what Bush did with the chief counter-terrorism adviser, and that was ignore his existence until the attacks.

If only bush had known Al Qaeda was a threat: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEB...arke%20memo.pdf

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

sigh.

LOL at that memo from Clarke to Condi.

But the thing Condi (along with whomever shared her thinking at the time) don't seem to understand is that everything in the present is as a result of the past. If the threat was based upon "historical information based on old reporting", why wasn't this an alarm? People responsible for 9/11 waited a very long time to carry out that plot .. ever since they tried to blow up the WTC the first time with the car bomb. People who do this will have all the time in the world. The alarm should have sounded after that car bomb but unfortuantely, nothing like that happened in this country before, nobody thought it actually would. Someone dropped the ball.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

- George Santayana

[piratesmvp04]

And we have lost. We set benchmarks for the surge to be a success, and quite literally, they have not been accomplished. And when we ask for a simple clarification of what success will be, we get no details.

It's not about prophesy, it's about defining success and acting towards those goals. McCain has never said what success is, and so how can we be sure we'll ever attain it?

I also should point out that there was a multinational force against the Axis in WW2, but due to our uniliateral stance at this point, that's totally different. Plus, not for nothing, but we already won the war against Iraq. Germany had a brief post-war insurgency that was quickly quashed, while Iraq's is going into its 4th year. The closest similar case would be the American-Filipino war, where there were still casualties 11 years following the cessation of the conflict.

Well, how will they be defeated? Ignoring McCain for a second, what do you consider success? When Iraq joins NATO? When they can have their own voice to oppose radical Islam throughout the middle east? When the economy reaches a certain point? When sunni and shi'a aren't fighting in the streets? When the refugees can return without fear of reprisal? When all benchmarks are met? When we can stop paying both sides to prevent outbreaks of violence?

These are simple questions; what is the Iraq War to you? To me, we need to begin withdrawing troops because the Iraqi Government isn't taking us seriously, and refuse to find a true solution to the conflict. Ba'athists are still prevented from holding office, refugees still cannot return home, shia's cannot return to their neighborhoods because it's been taken over by sunni's (and vice versa). Anbar is still a tremendously dangerous place.

Victory in Iraq to me will be achieved when the insurgency drops to a level that is manageable by the Iraqi military. While I do believe we are close to that point, we're not quite there yet. I don't care what the Iraqi government does; they can be the crappiest government in the world, as long as they can manage the threats to their freedom. I do believe that withdrawals can start soon because victory is near, but we have to be careful unless we don't mind Iraq turning into what Afghanistan is right now.

And about the benchmarks you mentioned, the Iraqi government was given 6 political benchmarks to fulfill as part of the troop surge. They have completed 4. While that is not complete, it is very good considering the great instability of the Iraqi government. And, the violence has dropped since the surge, and the fact that the Democrats, who hate the war, have been mentioning the Iraq war extremely little means that they know we're winning. And don't give me that 'paying Sunnis' crap. Anyone who knows the people over there would know that $300/month to be a police force for the Great Satan is not going to change the attitude of the insurgents.

[BigRog]

I love how people think we are "winning" the war

as of now I would trust the bullshit out of Joe Morgan's mouth over whats coming out of our governments mouth.

[duckdodger215]

Um dont you mean Reps tax more?? Reps tax the middle and lower classes out the anal cavity my friend. The rich will always be rich, plus some. The Dems lower taxes on the lower classes, always have.

ummmmm, what?

2008 Tax Brackets:

income

0-$8025 --- 10%

$8026-$32550 --- 15%

$32551-$78850 --- 25%

$78851-$164550 --- 28%

$164551-$357700 --- 33%

$357701+ --- 35%

Explain how middle and lower class gets taxed more.

[duckdodger215]

When baby Bush was running for President, he said he was going to have a hands-off policy toward the rest of the world. We should have had diplomatic relations in high gear with all these countries from day one but we left them to their own and it's kind of like when a teacher leaves the classroom unattended ... erasers will fly all over the place.

yeah, smart... allow the US to get terrorized and essentially bombed by our own planes and sit on our hands and do nothing... what an effin' brilliant plan that would have been. Diplomacy ends when we are attacked, which we were.

N Korea and Iran have proved they aren't to be trusted by alienating and not cooperating with the UN. America is targets of both of these countries. If the UN continues to push these BS deadlines back each time, then we have to take measures to ensure we aren't attacked. One country, Iraq, is no longer a threat because of our actions.

Duck, you do realize Clinton did many things before he left office including giving bush info on all terrorist threats when Bush took over. A lot of people don't remember any of that though because it was shrouded by the Lewinsky scandal that was happening at the same time.

For years the 9/11 terrorists were in flight school in our own country. Why was this not found out between 96 and 2000? Look at what has been thwarted since. Other countries continue to get bombed (UK, Spain, etc..) while there has not been one significant event in the US since 2001. Coincidence? Not at all. We all live in a safer country today because of the action taken these past 7 years. Anyone who says it's been a waste is stabbing every single military personnel in the back.